Thông tin tài liệu
1
Updated as of April 6, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. EST
Read the statement on the update
.
Economic Analysis of the House Budget Resolution
by the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation
April 5, 2011
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the U.S.
House of Representatives, requested by letter that the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) undertake
an economic analysis of the House Budget Resolution for federal fiscal year 2012 through 2021.
1
The Chairman specifically asked the CDA to perform conventional and dynamic budget analysis,
or analysis that is based on largely “static” budget models and on economic models with
dynamic economic properties. These economic models estimate the likely effects of policy
change on the major components of economic activity—supply of resources, prices,
demographic change, and so forth—which might affect federal fiscal results through revenues
and outlay costs.
This report summarizes the results of the CDA’s analysis of the House Budget Resolution
using these models. As a general matter, the CDA found that implementing the policy changes
behind the Budget Resolution would significantly strengthen economic performance throughout
the economy and dramatically improve federal fiscal results. This analysis demonstrates that
significant actions can be taken now to reform our tax code and rein in the drivers of fiscal
imbalances.
Indeed, our work shows that those steps can be taken with a strong confidence of ultimate
success.
Analysis of the Budget Resolution
CDA employed its tax models and the U.S. Macroeconomic Model of IHS Global
Insight, Inc., to estimate the fiscal and economic effects of the House Budget Resolution.
2
Center
analysts primarily employed the CDA Individual Income Tax Model for its analysis of the
effects of tax law changes on a representative sample of taxpayers based on IRS Statistics of
Income (SOI) taxpayer microdata. Data for these taxpayers are extrapolated or “aged” to reflect
detailed taxpayer characteristics. These data are aged for consistency with the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) baseline forecast in order to produce effective and marginal tax rate
1
A copy of this request is attached to this report as Appendix 1.
2
The U.S. Macroeconomic Model is owned and maintained by IHS Global Insight, Inc., the leading economic
forecasting firm in the United States. The Global Insight model is used by private-sector and government economists
to estimate how changes in the economy and public policy are likely to affect major economic indicators. The
methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions presented here are entirely the work of analysts in the Center
for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. They have not been endorsed by, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of, the owners of the Global Insight model.
2
estimates with which to forecast the dynamic economic and fiscal effects stemming from
changes in tax burden.
3
Staff of the House Budget Committee supplied the CDA with sufficient detail on the
House Budget Resolution to allow Center analysts to simulate the fiscal effects of changes in tax
law and major programs and outlay categories. Details on the steps taken to incorporate these
policy changes in the model are contained in Appendix 2 to this report.
What does policy simulation mean? Model simulation of public policy change requires
two sets of data. First, estimates of how the changes affect outlays and revenues, which become
the policy inputs to the dynamic model. Second, analysts need a baseline of economic and fiscal
data that do not contain these policy changes. The model then calculates the difference it makes
to the baseline when public policy changes. Thus, when we report, for example, that Gross
Domestic Product increased by an annual average of $150 billion because of the policy changes
contained in the Budget Resolution, this means that the dynamic model has estimated much more
economic output over the amount contained in the baseline.
The baseline economy and fiscal world within which CDA simulated the policy changes
of the House Budget Resolution is the Alternative Fiscal Scenario developed by the
Congressional Budget Office. The CBO described the Alternative Fiscal Scenario in the
following way in its June 2010 report, The Long-Term Budget Outlook:
The alternative fiscal scenario embodies several possible changes
to current law that would continue certain tax and spending
policies that people have grown accustomed to (because the
policies are in place now or have been in place recently). Versions
of some of the changes assumed in the scenario—such as those
related to the AMT and Medicare’s payments to physicians—have
regularly been enacted in the past. Those and certain other changes
included in the scenario—such as changes related to the tax cuts
enacted in 2001 and 2003—are widely expected to be made in
some form over the next few years.
4
Revenues may rise under the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, but not as much as under
CBO’s other and more frequently cited forecast, the Extended Baseline Scenario. Under the
Alternative forecast, fiscal imbalances worsen as the years go by and Congress repeatedly fails to
address the main drivers of ballooning deficits: the mandatory spending programs, largely for
retired Americans. Some of these fiscal problems are assumed to be fixed in the Extended
Baseline.
3
Additional information on the CDA Individual Income Tax Model and how Center analysts implemented the tax
provisions of the House Budget Resolution is provided in Appendix 2 of this report.
4
Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, June 2010, p. 2, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/06-30-LTBO.pdf
(April 2, 2011).
3
Thus, the Alternative Scenario is better suited for analyzing the House Budget Proposal
than the Extended Baseline. It provides a baseline reflecting a largely unreformed tax code and
persistently worsening fiscal results stemming from the absence of any major budgetary or
program reforms.
5
In short, the policy changes behind the Budget Resolution stand in very sharp
contrast to an economic and fiscal world without reform.
Center analysts introduced these microsimulation results into the U.S. Macroeconomic
Model that has been specially adapted to work with the Alternative Fiscal Scenario. Details on
how this adaptation occurred are contained in Appendix 2 of this report.
Economic and Fiscal Results
The tax and program changes behind the Budget Resolution produce much stronger
economic performance when compared to the rate and level of economic activity in the
baseline.
6
Lower taxes stimulate greater investment, which expands the size of business activity.
This expansion fuels a demand for more labor, which enters a labor market that contains workers
who themselves face lower taxes. Consequently, significantly higher employment ensues.
Gains in employment along with lower taxes lead to higher household incomes. The
growth of business enterprise coupled with the increase in disposable income fuels more
extensive savings and investment by households, which results in the growth of household
assets. The stock and value of residential structures increases, as does the volume of household
net worth.
As a consequence of the growth in the size of the economy (for example, $1.5 trillion
over ten years in additional economic output results from the budget plan), the income base from
which the federal government draws its taxes grows significantly. The growth in federal tax
revenues under the budget plan matches the growth in the baseline, despite a significant drop in
the tax rate and other changes in tax policy favorable to taxpayers.
This obvious strengthening in the tax base and in federal receipts is accompanied by
substantially improved fiscal results on the outlay side. Total outlays fall by a total of $9.3
trillion over the ten-year period, 2012 to 2021. This significant decrease leads to a sharp
reduction in the total amount of federal debt: By 2021, publicly held debt is $9.9 trillion lower
than in the baseline, which forecasts an economic and fiscal scenario without the policy changes
of the Budget Resolution. The yields on 10-year Treasury notes fall by 84 basis points by 2021,
and the effective interest rate on the Federal Reserve’s interbank borrowing rate is nearly a full
percentage point lower than it is in the baseline.
5
While forecasting dire fiscal results in the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the CBO paradoxically did not worsen its
economic forecast after 2020 over that contained in the Extended Baseline Scenario. This lack of parallel treatment
with the fiscal results raises challenges for a dynamic simulation using the Alternative forecast. CDA made an effort
to introduce a more comparable set of economic outcomes to the baseline that align with the fiscal forecasts made by
CBO. See Appendix 2 for details.
6
Detailed results of this simulation for major economic and fiscal indicators are contained in Appendix 3 to this
report.
4
These are highly positive results, but more steps need to be taken to rein in spending by
reforming the drivers of fiscal imbalances. The period 2012 through 2021 is the opening scene
in the nation’s long struggle to fund the retirement of the most numerous generation ever to retire
while keeping the economy moving forward for those Americans who are below 30 years of age
today. To achieve such fiscal sanity given these changes in demography, the tax code and the
mandatory spending programs need substantial reform.
Nevertheless, this model-based analysis of the House Budget Resolution and the policy
changes underneath it clearly show that a solid step toward a stronger economic and fiscal future
can be taken with every confidence of success.
Summary Results
A simulation of the House Budget Resolution using the U.S. Macroeconomic Model from
IHS/Global Insight produced the following results for the period 2012 through 2021:
Major Economic Indicators
• Employment: Private employment grew by an annual average of 1.6 million jobs above
the CBO alternative budget baseline. Total employment grew by an average of 1.3
million jobs, which indicates shrinkage of public-sector employment of 300,000 on
average.
• Economic Output: The Gross Domestic Product grew by an average, inflation-adjusted
amount of $149.5 billion above baseline over the 10-year period. By 2021, GDP is $401
billion higher than baseline.
• Disposable Income: The after-tax, inflation-adjusted disposable income of households
by 2021 is $164 billion higher than the baseline. Lower taxes and a friendlier economy
led to the formation of an average of 123,000 more households per year.
• Savings and Investment: Stronger economic growth led individuals to increase private
savings by an average of $202 billion over the ten-year period.
o This increase in private savings was matched by increases in investment in
residential structures ($110 billion on average), non-residential equipment ($216
billion on average), and non-residential structures ($30 billion on average).
• Interest Rates and Inflation: Interest rates are generally lower than in the baseline. The
yield on ten-year Treasury notes fell by an average of 37.6 basis points. The Consumer
Price Index was virtually unchanged.
5
• Household Net Worth: The net worth of households increases by an annual average of
$564 billion after inflation across this ten-year period.
Major Fiscal Indicators
• Federal Debt to GDP Ratio: The ratio of publicly held debt to GDP in 2021 (the end of
the 10-year budget window) is projected to stand at 65 percent. Without the policy
changes of the House Budget Resolution it would stand at 107 percent of GDP.
• Federal Revenues: Total federal revenues as a percent of GDP remain virtually
unchanged from the baseline over the forecast period despite significant tax policy
change: The House plan is 0.2 basis points (less than 1 basis point) lower on average than
the forecast.
o Total receipts are $591 billion higher over the ten-year forecast period.
o On personal taxes, the income tax base grows on average by $279 billion, and
personal tax receipts are $681 billion higher over the ten-year period.
o Corporate tax receipts are lower by $355 billion over the ten-year period.
• Federal Outlays: Total federal outlays are $703 billion lower on average over the ten-
year period 2012 through 2021. In total, there are $9.3 trillion fewer dollars spent by the
federal government over this ten-year period.
o Non-Defense Discretionary Purchases fall by an average of $118 billion per year.
o Defense Purchases fall by an average of $128 billion per year.
A Note about Interest Rates, Debt and the House Budget
The House Budget significantly reduces the deficit in the ten year (2012-2021) time
frame compared to its current policy fiscal path. The tax reform policies lower rates on labor and
capital, which provide incentives to supply more of these productive resources. This causes
revenues from these sources to be higher than a static estimate would project. Reductions in
government spending lower expectations of future higher taxes and encourage greater investment
in private sector enterprises versus precautionary savings in risk-free bonds. The lower supply of
government bonds puts downward pressure on interest rates.
7
7
Lower supply raises the price of bonds all else equal and bond prices and interest rates move in opposite directions.
6
However, the strong economic growth resulting from the tax and spending reforms also
puts upward pressure on interest rates. A dynamic analysis shows that the net effect is lower
interest rates from their current trajectory but higher than a static score predicted.
The static score of the House Budget seems to use much lower interest rates in the net
interest payment calculation. The rates assumed are consistent with the current deflationary and
slow growth economy, but would not be reasonable to assume these rates would continue
especially if the economy begins to exhibit robust growth.
This again highlights the need for dynamic scoring to better understand the interactive
effects of a complex economic system and take account of them. This will help better guide
policies by (a) guiding expectations of deficits so as to minimize surprise budgetary needs (b)
allows for better allocation of resources to meet the budgetary needs and (c) undertaking greater
budget reforms that are in their direct control to offset effects that are not.
7
Appendix 1
8
Appendix 2
Simulation Methodology
IHS Global Insight March 2011 Long-Term Model
CDA analysts used a version of the IHS Global Insight March 2011 Long-Term Model of the
U.S. economy to estimate the overall net economic effects of the House Budget.
8
The adjusted
GI March 2011 long-term model baseline represents the most likely path of the U.S. economy if
the federal government extended policies consistent with those economic and budgetary
assumptions underlying the Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast as published by the CBO Long-
Term Budget Outlook Report.
Description of the Adjusted GI March 2011 Long-Term Baseline
CDA analysts used a version of the GI March 2011 long-term model (referred to as the adjusted
GI long-term baseline) of the U.S. economy to estimate the overall net effects of the House
Budget plan. This adjusted GI long-term model of the U.S. economy reflects as close as possible
to the Alternative Fiscal Scenario (AFS) forecast published in the June 2010 Long-Term Budget
Outlook Report by the Congressional Budget Office.
9
Economic Variables Underlying the Adjusted GI Long-Term Baseline. The economic
projections in the CBO Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast are the same as those
underlying the CBO Long-Term Extended Baseline Scenario forecast.
10
For the 10-year fiscal outlook, the adjusted GI Long-Term model used the detailed assumptions
in the 10-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook as published by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO). Thus, the economic projections underlying the adjusted GI March 2011 long-term model
are exactly the same as those underlying the CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook for the 2011
to 2022 projection period.
11
8
The Global Insight model is used by private-sector and government economists to estimate how changes in the
economy and public policy are likely to affect major economic indicators. The methodologies, assumptions,
conclusions, and opinions presented here are entirely the work of analysts in the Center for Data Analysis at The
Heritage Foundation. They have not been endorsed by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, the owners of the
Global Insight model.
9
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, June 2010, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/06-30-LTBO.pdf
(March 30, 2011).
10
Note that the economic projections underlying the alternative fiscal scenario forecast in The Long-Term Budget
Outlook are the same assumed for the Long-Term Extended Baseline Scenario forecast. Ibid.
11
See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021, January 2011,
Appendix D-1 and D-2, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf
(March 30,
2011).
9
The economic projections underlying the adjusted GI long-term baseline in the years 2022 to
2041 trend to the percentage change in the series applied to the value of the previous quarter
beginning with 2021 Quarter 3. There is less detailed economic projection data underlying the
CBO long-term alternative fiscal scenario forecast, so where possible the adjusted GI long-term
baseline corresponds to the economic projection data assumed by the CBO.
12
Demographic Variables Underlying the Adjusted GI Long-Term Baseline. The assumptions
on the demographic variables in the adjusted GI long-term baseline are the same as those
underlying the CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast.
13
Spending Assumptions Underlying the Adjusted GI Long-Term Baseline. The adjusted GI
long-term baseline used the same assumptions on federal government spending as detailed for
the CBO long-term AFS forecast.
14
Medicare. Medicare consumption in the adjusted GI long-term baseline was adjusted in two
components: the amount assumed in the long-term CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast for
Medicare premium payments and then by the forecast of the general amount of projected
Medicare mandatory spending as a percent of GDP.
15
The payment rates to physicians are
assumed to grow with the Medicare economic index, and the several policies that are proposed to
restrain program spending are assumed to never take effect.
16
Medicaid, CHIP, and Exchange Subsidies. The spending on these programs in the adjusted GI
long-term baseline was the same assumed spending as a percent of GDP in the CBO long-term
AFS.
17
Under current law there is assumed policy that would “slow the growth of subsidies for
health insurance coverage” which is not assumed in the CBO long-term AFS. Therefore, the
assumption underlying the spending in Medicaid, CHIP, and Exchange subsidies accounts for the
1 percent of GDP difference between the long-term Extended baseline scenario and the AFS
forecasts.
18
12
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Supplemental Data (Economic Variables),
June 2010, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/LTBO-2010data.xls
(March 30, 2011).
13
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Appendix B.
14
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, p. 3.
15
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, June 2010, p. 3, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/LTBO-2010data.xls
(March 30, 2011). See also Congressional Budget
Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Supplemental Data (Summary Alt. Fiscal Scenario), June 2010, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/LTBO-2010data.xls
(March 30, 2011).
16
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, p. 3.
17
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Supplemental Data (Fig. 2-2).
18
The difference is 0.1 percent of GDP in 2020 as well as 2035, so the adjusted GI baseline adjusts the overall
mandatory spending on Medicaid by this difference beginning in 2020. Since the exchange subsidies begin in 2014,
the spending from 2014 through 2019 on overall mandatory spending in Medicaid as a percent of GDP is adjusted
10
Social Security. Spending in Social Security in the adjusted GI long-term baseline was assumed
to grow at the same percent of GDP in the CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast.
19
Other Non-interest Spending. GI variables that reflect aggregate federal defense and non-defense
real spending were generally assumed to change by the last value (in fiscal-year terms) applied to
a ratio of the real baseline value to the last real value (in fiscal-year terms) in the adjusted GI
long-term baseline using detailed budgetary targets from 2011 to 2021.
20
Net Interest Payments. The federal net interest payments in the adjusted GI long-term baseline
reflect that assumed in the CBO long-term alternative fiscal scenario.
21
Revenue Assumptions Underlying the Adjusted GI Long-Term Baseline. The adjusted GI
long-term baseline used the same underlying assumptions about federal government revenues as
those underlying the CBO’s long-term AFS forecast.
22
Second, the policy alternatives that affect
the tax code as outlined in the 10-year Budget and Economic Outlook are assumed in the
adjusted GI long-term baseline. The changes used as targets in adjusting the baseline are the
effect on the deficit and the debt service to extend certain income tax and estate and gift tax
provisions scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, and index the AMT for inflation and also
to extend other expiring tax provisions.
23
Description of the Dynamic Simulation
CDA analysts conducted the dynamic macroeconomic simulation using the static estimates of the
tax and spending levels as provided by the House Budget Committee. The GI long-term model,
as stated before, is a dynamic model of the U.S. economy that is designed to estimate how the
general economy is reshaped by policy reforms, such as the tax reform and spending changes
proposed in the House Budget plan.
The relationships in the model are calibrated by historical U.S. data and mainstream economic
theory. The model is a tool that provides insight into likely magnitudes and the direction of
economic variables due to policy changes. A dynamic analysis of a policy change is important
because in an ever-changing and market-based economy, indirect and feedback effects need to be
taken into account to obtain a true estimate of the likely overall economic impact.
up by a fraction of the 0.1 difference between the CBO Extended baseline and the CBO Alternative Fiscal Scenario.
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, pp. 3 and 7.
19
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Supplemental Data (Summary Alt. Fiscal
Scenario).
20
See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook, p. 54.
21
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Supplemental Data (Summary Alt. Fiscal
Scenario).
22
See Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, p. 3.
23
See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook, p. 22.
[...]... (RTXCGFRES) that measures the difference between the effective and statutory corporate income tax rates to account for modest base-broadening proposed by tax policy specifications in the House Budget Resolution Static Spending Estimates Static spending estimates for the House Budget Resolution were obtained from the House Budget Committee The macroeconomic model has broad spending categories for Mandatory... that measures the maximum marginal tax rate on capital gains given by the House Budget Committee Statutory Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate The statutory federal corporate income tax rate variable was adjusted to the rate outlined in the tax policy specification of the House Budget Resolution 11 Difference Between Effective and Statutory Corporate Income Tax Rate CDA analysts made an adjustment on the. .. Rates,” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2004, Volume 19, Mark Gertler and Kenneth Rogoff, eds (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, April 2005), at http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6669 (April 1, 2011) 14 Appendix 3 Macroeconomic Simulation Results 15 How the House Budget Resolution Would Affect Major Economic Indicators (Estimates by the Center for Data Analysis of The Heritage Foundation Baseline created from the. .. final stage of the simulations the add factors were endogenously recalculated in order to take account of the new estimates of the average tax rates mentioned above Cost of Capital The cost of capital changes are affected directly and indirectly by the dynamic effects (1) Lower corporate tax rates reduces the value of the interest rate deduction, which can put upward pressure on the cost of capital... dynamic responses from the CBO long-term Alternative Fiscal Scenario forecast as a result of the proposed revenue and spending changes in the House Budget Resolution Static Revenue Estimates The IHS GI long-term model contains a number of variables that are used to conduct the macroeconomic simulation of the House Budget plan CDA analysts made the following changes regarding tax inputs in the adjusted GI... to account for static estimates provided by the House Budget Committee: Average Marginal Tax Rates In the macroeconomic model, overall average marginal tax rates were changed by the amount simulated by the microsimulation tax model for individual filers CDA analysts adjusted the GI variable (RTXPMARGF) that directly measures the average federal marginal income tax using percent changes from the baseline... level given by the House Budget Committee The GI model has three broad discretionary categories for defense and three categories for non-defense spending CDA analysts made adjustments to these variables by apportioning the total change in the budget by the historical weight of total spending in each of the three categories This was done for both defense and non-defense category variables The variables... Governments The spending level for Medicaid transfers was changed using the same methodology as the Medicare spending given the percent of GDP changes supplied by the House Budget Committee CDA analysts made an adjustment to the GI variable (GFAIDSLSSMEDR) that measures the real federal Medicaid grants to state and local governments by deflating the nominal dollar difference The inputs for the macroeconomic... Unified Budget Basis House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference 2,741.9 2,684.3 57.7 2,962.9 2,878.2 84.8 Federal Outlays Unified Budget Basis House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference 3,603.7 3,692.8 -89.1 Real Net Exports of Goods & Services House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference Foreign Assets in the US Current Cost House. .. the US Current Cost House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference Chained Price Index Health Care House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference Effective Federal Personal Income Tax Rate House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference Real Household Income House Budget Resolution Baseline without Budget Resolution Difference 2018 . Updated as of April 6, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. EST Read the statement on the update . Economic Analysis of the House Budget Resolution by the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the U.S. House of Representatives, requested by letter that the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) undertake an economic analysis of the House Budget Resolution. 216.3 How the House Budget Resolution Would Affect Major Economic Indicators (Estimates by the Center for Data Analysis of The Heritage Foundation. Baseline created from the Alternative Fiscal
Ngày đăng: 31/03/2014, 07:20
Xem thêm: Economic Analysis of the House Budget Resolution by the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation pot, Economic Analysis of the House Budget Resolution by the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation pot